Home FeaturedTourism company ignores tribunal warnings, loses right to defend harassment allegations

Tourism company ignores tribunal warnings, loses right to defend harassment allegations

by HR Law Canada

An Ontario human rights tribunal has ruled that two respondents in a sexual harassment case have waived their rights to participate in proceedings after repeatedly failing to comply with tribunal directions.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that Back Country Tours and the Estate of D.H. are deemed to be in default and to have accepted all allegations in the application filed by C.C., who claims discrimination with respect to employment because of sex and sexual harassment.

The case highlights the serious consequences employers face when they fail to engage with human rights proceedings, even when they may believe they have valid defenses.

Multiple warnings ignored

The tribunal’s journey to this decision spans nearly two years of repeated directions and warnings to the respondents.

In September 2023, the tribunal issued its first Case Assessment Direction, requiring both parties to prepare, exchange and file certain documents within 42 days. When the respondents failed to provide information about their legal status, the tribunal suspended disclosure deadlines in June 2024 and gave them 30 days to deliver the required documentation.

The respondents again failed to respond, prompting the tribunal to issue a second Case Assessment Direction in January 2025. This direction specifically warned the respondents that they could be deemed in default, noting “the consequences of failing to follow the Tribunal’s directions pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.”

After the parties eventually responded to some of the tribunal’s directions, a third Case Assessment Direction was issued in April 2025, reinstating the original disclosure deadlines and requiring documentation by May 29, 2025.

Applicant granted extension despite objection

While the applicant submitted her required documents one day late on May 30, 2025, she had requested a one-day extension by email on May 29. The respondents objected to this extension request the same day.

The tribunal granted the extension, noting that “there is no prejudice to either party by the granting of this extension request as no merits hearing has yet been scheduled.”

However, the respondents provided no response at all to the tribunal’s directions, despite the passed deadline.

Email delivery confirmed

The tribunal confirmed that all directions and the previous interim decision were delivered to the respondents by email at the address they had provided. None of the emails were returned as undeliverable.

Significantly, the tribunal noted that email exchanges between the parties regarding the applicant’s extension request confirmed that the respondents were aware of the tribunal’s directions, making their non-participation a conscious choice rather than a communication failure.

Default consequences applied

Under Rule 5.5 of the tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, when a respondent fails to respond to an application, the tribunal may take several serious steps. These include deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations, proceeding without further notice, deeming the respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation, and deciding the matter based only on available material.

The tribunal applied all of these consequences, finding that the respondents “have chosen not to participate in these proceedings, notwithstanding notice of the implications of Rule 5.5.”

The tribunal will now proceed without the respondents’ participation and has deemed them to have waived their rights to notice and participation. Most significantly, the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application.

Merits hearing scheduled

The tribunal has directed that a one-day video-conference merits hearing be scheduled for the next available date. This hearing will proceed with only the applicant’s evidence and arguments, as the respondents have forfeited their right to participate.

The case will now move forward to determine remedies, as the substantive allegations are deemed accepted by the respondents’ default.

For more information, see Cloutier v. Back Country Tours Inc., 2025 HRTO 1430 (CanLII).

You may also like

Leave a Comment